The Mail

Letters from our readers.

A TOTAL BUST

As Mattathias Schwartz shows, in his article about the human cost of the drug war in Honduras, you don’t have to be a promoter of drug use to see that the war on drugs is wasteful (“A Mission Gone Wrong,” January 6th). Studies over the past twenty years have shown that even as spending on interdiction continues to grow—I was astonished to read in your article that it’s now fifteen billion dollars annually—the quantity of street drugs is increasing. Rather than concede that the task of interdiction cannot be achieved at a price that we are willing to pay, or increase spending on alternatives (like better education about the ill effects of drug abuse and treatment for those whom education does not reach), we make incremental increases in the budget for a failed policy. In addition, policymakers persist in listing marijuana as among the most dangerous narcotics, while many American adults have experienced marijuana to be more benign than alcohol. Is it possible that experimental use of marijuana, without adverse consequences, inures young people to the idea of breaking drug laws? Does the lack of adverse effect convince them that the prohibition of other, objectively more destructive drugs is a canard?

Leslie R. Weatherhead

Spokane, Wash.

I greatly appreciate Schwartz’s in-depth reporting on a horrifying story about American foreign policy gone terribly wrong. However, he omitted important information. In particular, when discussing the Reagan era, he should have mentioned allegations that the C.I.A. condoned the importation of drugs on the same planes that were used to send arms to the Contras, in Nicaragua. Schwartz likewise could have included a discussion of the substantial laundered profits from illegal drug sales that benefit many corporations—banks, especially.

William Rigby

Chapel Hill, N.C.

TINKER TRACTOR FARMER SKY

Both Marcin Jakubowski and those who have donated money to his Global Village Construction Set project, which, to start, intends to build a self-sufficient community in Missouri, are naïve about technology (“The Civilization Kit,” December 23rd & 30th). Buying a used machine is like buying a used car: you may end up with a broken-down piece of junk. Jakubowski’s reaction—deciding that he and some novice designers could come up with a more cost-effective design—strikes me as poorly informed. Since Henry Ford began popularizing gasoline-powered tractors, in 1917, several companies, like Massey Ferguson and John Deere, have built strong reputations because they offer better products than their competitors, or than a back-yard tinkerer could bolt together. Jakubowski may like to frequently reference Robert Heinlein’s quote that “specialization is for insects,” but specialists offer both expertise and equipment for tasks such as drilling wells or designing machines. The open-source model, which is a proven way to develop computer software, does not translate to the manufacture of heavy machinery. This is because using open-source software requires only a computer, an Internet connection, and simple installation instructions. But the manufacture of multi-ton machines requires tools, as well as skilled workers. It is not at all surprising that many who showed up at Factor e Farm “display more enthusiasm . . . than expertise.” Furthermore, technology may indeed improve the lives of millions of the world’s poor. But, in many cases, poverty is linked to ineffective government, tribalism, and wars. Technology alone will not fix these problems.

Thomas Johnson

Gilberts, Ill.

Sign up to get the best of The New Yorker delivered to your inbox every day